• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC, Disorderly Conduct and the Fourteenth Amendment

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

So, I'm still really hung up on being able to defend against OC'ing not being Disorderly Conduct even though WE know it's not -- this is a defense scenario I've come up with and I'd like any critique on the premise...

The Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protect under the law for all people. So, for instance, if you're on public property and an officer orders you off of that property, this is not a lawful order since he isn't ordering everyone off of that property, e.g. the law isn't being applied equally since you're being singled out and are commanded to do something other than what the law provides for.

I was thinking about how this could be applied to Disorderly Conduct.

We walk down the street openly carrying a sidearm. Who else does this?

Law enforcement.

Why aren't they charging themselves with Disorderly Conduct? (Hear me out....)

The reactionary people might say, "Because they're a police officer." I say, "So, what?" The more thoughtful people might say, "Because they're a police officer discharging their duties as law enforcement." Which is a bit of a better answer; however, in almost every Disorderly Conduct statute there's no officer exception written into the law as there is, for example, for the carrying of a concealed weapon by an officer during the course of their duties.

This brings me to ask the question, if they're not arresting themselves for simply walking down the street while openly carrying a handgun, is this not a violation of your Fourteenth Amendment right to have the law equally applied to you? Unless the officer is specifically exempted, why is the law applied differently simply because of a job title?

Thoughts? Gaping holes in my logic? :)
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

I've had a form of this conversation with the police during a stop. They asked why I had guns. I asked why they had guns. They said they were allowed to have guns. I said so am I... back and forth. They weren't amused at the "sniper rifle" I had in the trunk, but it was all legal. They don't have to like it. It's not like I was accosted on my way up a tower with the thing loaded...

Anyway, as for the 14th amendment, I think the intent was sothat historically reviled minority types would have equal standing in the courts (particularly asa remedy for the Dred Scott ruling about the non-person status of Negroes), not that the law was to prohibit the police from singling out individuals. For example, saying "everyone else was going even faster than I was" is not a workable defense to a speeding ticket vis the 14th amendment.

-ljp
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

Legba wrote:
Anyway, as for the 14th amendment, I think the intent was sothat historically reviled minority types would have equal standing in the courts (particularly asa remedy for the Dred Scott ruling about the non-person status of Negroes), not that the law was to prohibit the police from singling out individuals. For example, saying "everyone else was going even faster than I was" is not a workable defense to a speeding ticket vis the 14th amendment.

-ljp
There are a few parts to the 14th Amendment and, while the case regarding the state providing council for indigent defendants at a felony trial was certainly part of it, the Supreme Court has stated in the past: "Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.'' Or, more succinctly, ''statutes create many classifications which do not deny equal protection; it is only 'invidious discrimination' which offends the Constitution.''

(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/19.html#1)

And, while you're example is correct ("Everyone was going faster than I was") is not a workable defense, I don't think it's an accurate representation simply because the officer COULD have pulled over other people that were speed (but simply chose you) and they do have latitude on writing citations.

Rather, if we gear the scenario back towards the one on one -- if you're on public property with a group of people and an officer indiscriminately comes up to you and says, "Legba, you must leave this property. Everyone else may stay," this is a violation of your Fourteenth Amendment rights because the law is not being equally applied to you.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Folks - show me a case holding OC in a holster while going about your business is DC - any state you can, show it to me. Otherwise, this threat of a DC charge is just a red herring.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
Folks - show me a case holding OC in a holster while going about your business is DC - any state you can, show it to me. Otherwise, this threat of a DC charge is just a red herring.

I mean, I know that it's a red herring, but the fact is there's always going to be a constant influx of new law enforcement who don't know the law and might (just might) wind up arresting someone on this charge.

While we know that it won't be prosecuteable, I'd like to, at the very least, be able to discuss and reason this other other people, if not a law enforcement officer, should the subject arise.

Delaware doesn't have any precidence for this, so -- rephrasing your question, if you can show me a Delaware or US Supreme Court case holding that OC'ing in a holster while going about your business is not disorderly conduct, I'd at least be armed with that cite. :)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
SNIP to defend against OC'ing not being Disorderly Conduct even though WE know it's not -- this is a defense scenario I've come up with and I'd like any critique on the premise...

What is the DC statute in your state? Can you post it for us?

There may be a way to bring brandishing into the picture. For example, if brandishing is defined as holding, waving, etc. in a manner that causes reasonable fear, you can counter by questioning whyyou are being accused of brandishing. When the harrasser says you're not being accused of brandishing, you can smugly point out that brandishing is the loooong-recognized legal threshold for reasonable fear, "So, if I'm not brandishing, their fear can't possibly be reasonable can it?"

Or, "Weapons are have their own statute--brandishing."
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
What is the DC statute in your state? Can you post it for us?
1301. Disorderly conduct; unclassified misdemeanor.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when:
(1) The person intentionally causes public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to any other person, or creates a risk thereof by:

a. Engaging in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or
b. Making an unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addressing abusive language to any person present; or
c. Disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful
authority; or
d. Obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
e. Congregating with other persons in a public place and refusing to comply with
a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
f. Creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition which serves no
legitimate purpose; or
g. Congregating with other persons in a public place while wearing masks,
hoods or other garments rendering their faces unrecognizable, for the
purpose of and in a manner likely to imminently subject any person to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States of America.

(2) The person engages with at least 1 other person in a course of disorderly conduct as defined in subdivision (1) of this section which is likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, and refuses or knowingly fails to obey an order to disperse made by a peace officer to the participants.

Disorderly conduct is an unclassified misdemeanor.

There may be a way to bring brandishing into the picture.
Delaware has no brandishing law. There is, however, manacing:

§ 602. Menacing; unclassified misdemeanor.

(a) A person is guilty of menacing when by some movement of body or any instrument the person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.

Menacing is an unclassified misdemeanor.

(b) A person is guilty of aggravated menacing when by displaying what appears to be a deadly weapon that person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.

Aggravated menacing is a class E felony.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
Citizen wrote:
What is the DC statute in your state? Can you post it for us?
SNIP 1301. Disorderly conduct; unclassified misdemeanor.

Looks like you've got your answer.

I don't see how the DC statute can be applied to OC. It just does not apply.

Substitute "menacing" or "aggravated menacing" for "brandishing" and you've got the statute. It looks like Delaware just usesa different word and is more comprehensive.

With regard to your earlier tactic, I think it will fail on the listener. It requires the listener to have a pre-existing agreement that police and citizens are equal.

I think that will be a rare police officer. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't hinge my argument on it. If its a police officer who has his self-importance and worth tied up in being a "protector" of society, you can forget having or getting his agreement on the equality point.

If your listener is a citizen who has bought into all the "police are..." PR, it will be just as difficult, but for different reasons.

I think your best bet is to just explain that DC covers certain behaviors and menacing covers certain other behaviors. And neither covers OC.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

Citizen wrote:
With regard to your earlier tactic, I think it will fail on the listener. It requires the listener to have a pre-existing agreement that police and citizens are equal.
Perhaps if you begin by explaining that the police are bound to laws, just as we are, the conversation might have a better start.

Can officers murder? No.

Can officers embezzle? No.

Can officers assault someone? No.

Can an officer speed? No.

And, with those last two, the person will realize or mention, "Well, if they're on duty, there are exemptions." And surely there are -- the exemptions are built into those laws; however, as proved by the first two examples, exemptions aren't universal across the Criminal Code.

The laws are meant to be equally applied to those whom they affect and are not exempt. Again, I know that we know this, but I'd love for the layperson to understand it.

*sigh*
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
Citizen wrote:
With regard to your earlier tactic, I think it will fail on the listener. It requires the listener to have a pre-existing agreement that police and citizens are equal.
SNIP Perhaps if you begin by explaining that the police are bound to laws, just as we are, the conversation might have a better start.

You jogged something for me, thank you.

I have hadsuccess pointing out that cops don't carry guns to catch criminals; they carry guns for self-defense.

Then point out that cops can't just shoot crooks to make them easier to catch, (except under some very specific circumstances, but you can add this later.) People willtend to agree with this. Cops can't avoid agreeing with it.

Then point out that police are subject to the same lawof self-defense that everybody else is.

Then explain that cops carry guns so they can defend themselves and others from criminals, just like you and I.The only difference is that a cop goes looking for criminals. But its still just self-defense, shooting a fleeingfelon who is clearly immediately dangerous to the community, excepted--and maybenot all that big ofan exception. Its only a short stretch to sayshooting that fleeing dangerous felon is defending others. Itis. Its just the time framein the form of immediacy of the threat that is different.
 

ATCer

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
89
Location
Iraq
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Wynder wrote:
Citizen wrote:
With regard to your earlier tactic, I think it will fail on the listener. It requires the listener to have a pre-existing agreement that police and citizens are equal.
SNIP Perhaps if you begin by explaining that the police are bound to laws, just as we are, the conversation might have a better start.

You jogged something for me, thank you.

I have hadsuccess pointing out that cops don't carry guns to catch criminals; they carry guns for self-defense.

Then point out that cops can't just shoot crooks to make them easier to catch, (except under some very specific circumstances, but you can add this later.) People willtend to agree with this. Cops can't avoid agreeing with it.

Then point out that police are subject to the same lawof self-defense that everybody else is.

Then explain that cops carry guns so they can defend themselves and others from criminals, just like you and I.The only difference is that a cop goes looking for criminals. But its still just self-defense, shooting a fleeingfelon who is clearly immediately dangerous to the community, excepted--and maybenot all that big ofan exception. Its only a short stretch to sayshooting that fleeing dangerous felon is defending others. Itis. Its just the time framein the form of immediacy of the threat that is different.
+1 Very good point!
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

In regards to the police carrying a gun and disorderly conduct....

I hardly think that anyone would believe this to be true. The people would actually expect every police officer to be wearing a gun as this has always been a part of the cops gear.

The police carry a gun, a baton, mace, and many other tools to get the job done. A gun is more than just personal protection to the police. It is also used to stop criminals who are about to attack others.

I have to laugh at the notion that someone would actually try to make a connection of the police with guns on duty to be disorderly conduct.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
In regards to the police carrying a gun and disorderly conduct....

I hardly think that anyone would believe this to be true. The people would actually expect every police officer to be wearing a gun as this has always been a part of the cops gear.

The police carry a gun, a baton, mace, and many other tools to get the job done. A gun is more than just personal protection to the police. It is also used to stop criminals who are about to attack others.

I have to laugh at the notion that someone would actually try to make a connection of the police with guns on duty to be disorderly conduct.

The point being made here is how some officers would find someone simply open carrying as being disorderly conduct. But putting that aside, do you really think what you're saying is a valid legal argument? Because it's always been that way?

In the 1700's, the same argument was used with regards to furthering the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance... "Since the orders and writs have been issued over the past century, their legality is time-proven."

The judge actually laughed at the arguing counsel.

In all honesty though, if there is no codified/statutory exception for an officer, why should they be exempt?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Wynder wrote:
The point being made here is how some officers would find someone simply open carrying as being disorderly conduct. But putting that aside, do you really think what you're saying is a valid legal argument? Because it's always been that way?

In the 1700's, the same argument was used with regards to furthering the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance... "Since the orders and writs have been issued over the past century, their legality is time-proven."

The judge actually laughed at the arguing counsel.

In all honesty though, if there is no codified/statutory exception for an officer, why should they be exempt?
Maybe you missed the point.... the "people" who see otherswill decide in their own minds ifsomeone is beingdisorderly based on what they are doing.

The people are NOT going to view the cops as being disorderly for carrying a gunas the people"expect" the police to be armed. In this..... I say "This is how it has always been." Therefore... it has noting to do with a "legal argument" and everything to do with public perception.

There are times when the people will think, believe, or even feel that another person armed with a gun is creating a panic orviewed as being disorderly. That is their call.

Now I do not agree that someone walking around with a gun would automatically be disorderly. That is just dumb. The police should not be going after people that are armed to charge them if there are no citizens making a complaint. I would need a victim to come forward.
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Wynder wrote:
The point being made here is how some officers would find someone simply open carrying as being disorderly conduct.
Maybe you missed the point.... the "people" who see otherswill decide in their own minds ifsomeone is beingdisorderly based on what they are doing.
We were obviously arguing different points here,

Now I do not agree that someone walking around with a gun would automatically be disorderly. That is just dumb. The police should not be going after people that are armed to charge them if there are no citizens making a complaint. I would need a victim to come forward.
But at least we're somewhat in agreement with regards to the conclusion with the stipend that the victims are lodging a valid complaint and not simply that there's an armed citizen walking down the street, minding their own business.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Now I do not agree that someone walking around with a gun would automatically be disorderly. That is just dumb. The police should not be going after people that are armed to charge them if there are no citizens making a complaint. I would need a victim to come forward.
So, if someone (The so called victim)said I was being disorderly while just openly carrying, you would arrest me for DC? I mightfind it disorderly andscary to see someone wearing a fur coat, as fur is murder, are you going to arrest them if I claim they are disordering my sense of well being?
 

SQLtables

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
894
Location
Secretary MOC, Inc. Frankenmuth, , USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
The police carry a gun, a baton, mace, and many other tools to get the job done. A gun is more than just personal protection to the police. It is also used to stop criminals who are about to attack others.
This is true for me too, and I'm not a cop... yet... so I don't understand this argument.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Now I do not agree that someone walking around with a gun would automatically be disorderly. That is just dumb. The police should not be going after people that are armed to charge them if there are no citizens making a complaint. I would need a victim to come forward.
So, if someone (The so called victim)said I was being disorderly while just openly carrying, you would arrest me for DC? I mightfind it disorderly andscary to see someone wearing a fur coat, as fur is murder, are you going to arrest them if I claim they are disordering my sense of well being?
Nope....

Now if you entered a private party that was for anti gun members and your being there with a gun is obviously not welcome. Your there just to stir things up and IF...... big IF..... the state code for disorderly conduct covered this type of act... then ya!! You get a ticket.

But as I said... it is not something that is automatic unless there is a state code that says so.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Venator wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Now I do not agree that someone walking around with a gun would automatically be disorderly. That is just dumb. The police should not be going after people that are armed to charge them if there are no citizens making a complaint. I would need a victim to come forward.
So, if someone (The so called victim)said I was being disorderly while just openly carrying, you would arrest me for DC? I mightfind it disorderly andscary to see someone wearing a fur coat, as fur is murder, are you going to arrest them if I claim they are disordering my sense of well being?
Nope....

Now if you entered a private party that was for anti gun members and your being there with a gun is obviously not welcome. Your there just to stir things up and IF...... big IF..... the state code for disorderly conduct covered this type of act... then ya!! You get a ticket.

But as I said... it is not something that is automatic unless there is a state code that says so.


That's not what you stated. As for your recent example, only if the party was on private property and I was asked to leave. If the gathering of anti's was on public land I have a right to be there. But as you say depending on state and local laws.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

Then point out that cops can't just shoot crooks to make them easier to catch, (except under some very specific circumstances, but you can add this later.)
I don't know if it is still on the books but in NC the Governor could declare someone an outlaw which meant they were to be shot on sight. That was an example of shooting crooks to make them easier to catch. :D I think the term was outlaw, maybe someone from NC can fill us in on it.
 
Top